: 


REVIEW 


s 


III! 

t'i.lVLI.FID  i 

I:  I  / 


OF  A 


it 


LETTER  FROM  THE 


I  i 


Eli  ill  ill  ili 


Bishop  of  Vermont, 


ON  THE 


BIBLE  VIEW  OF  SLAVERY, 


>  y 


By  a  Vermonter. 


r 


j 


tf  iVL-0  h. 


BURLINGTON  : 

FREE  PRESS  PRINT. 
1861. 


R  E  V  I E  V\ 

Of  A 


“LETTER  FROM  THE 


Bishop  ol  Vermont, 


ON  T11E 


BIBLE  VIEW  OF  SLAVERY” 

By  a  Vermonter. 

Le.  o;v\  ct'fdL  Mry  s  \\ 


BURLINGTON  : 

FREE  PRESS  PRINT. 
•  1861. 


t 


¥ 


PREFACE. 


On  the  20th  of  December  I860,  some  gentlemen  of  New  York  City  addressed  a 
letter  to  “The  High i  Rev  John  H.  Hopkins,  D.  D.  LL.  D.,  Bishop  of  Vermont/’ 
requesting  him,  in  view  of  the  disturbed  condition  of  the  country,  arising,  as  they  said, 

•  -  from  the  persevering  agitation  of  the  question  of  Slavery/’  to  favor  them  with  his 
“  opinions  upon  the  Scriptural  Authority  for  Slavery,  and  the  constitutional  position  of 
the  contending  parties,”  hoping  that  good  would  come  to  mauy  in  the  community  from 
their  being  made  known  On  the  30th  of  January  1861,  Bishop  Hopkins  replied  to 
their  request  in  the  letter  which  forms  the  subject  of  the  following  review.  His  letter 
was  published  in  some  of  the  New  York  City  papers,  and  subsequentiy  in  pamphlet 
form.  It  was  stated  also  that  a  Society  entitled  “The  American  Society  for  promo¬ 
ting  National  Unity”  which  was  formed  in  New  York  a  few  months  ago,  with  Samuel 
F.  (J.  Morse,  of  N.  Y  for  President  ;  James  T.  Soutter,  of  N.  Y.  Treasure  ;  and 
Messrs.  Hubuard  Winslow  and  Seth  Bliss,  Secretaries,  was  preparing  an  edition  of 
20,000  copies  ot  this  letter,  as  its  first  issue  in  the  promotion  of  the  objects  of  the 
society. 

The  feeling  of  many  in  this  vicinity  of  the  residence  and  labors  of  Bishop  Hopkins 
for  many  years  past,  is,  that  iho  reputation  of  the  people  of  Vermont  required  that 
t  his  letter  should  have  a  more  extended  examination  and  exposure  than  the  brief  no¬ 
tices  of  it  in  some  of  the  newspapers  of  the  State  could  furnish.  Hence  the  following 
“  Review.”  The  Reviewer  lias  not  thought  it  worth  while  to  criticise  the  argu¬ 
ment  of  the  last  part  of  the  letter,  in  favor  of  the  right  of  “  Secession.”  That  subject  is 
now  in  the  way  of  a  very  practical  solution, — to  which  it  may  be  left. 

Burlington,  Vt  ,  May  1881. 


0 


32  (* 

/v  35 r 


R,  E  V  I  K  W 

o  P 


BI'SHOP  HOPKINS 


U' 


BIBLE  VIEW  OF  SLAVERY.” 


The  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Vermont,  it  seems,  was  called  upon 
some  weeks  since,  by  certain  persons  in  New  York,  for  his  “  opinion  upon 
the  Scriptural  authority  for  Slavery” — a  very  harmless  opinion,  one 
would  think  from  the  reading  of  it.  But  that  it  is  supposed  by  some  to 
be  capable  of  mischief  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  twenty  thousand 
copies  of  it  have  been,  or  are" to  be, published  by  a  certain  recent  combin¬ 
ation  of  unequivocal  character  in  New  York,  known  under  the  style  and 
title  of  the  “  American  Society  for  promoting  National  Unity,”  alias 
the  Society  for  transforming  the  government  of  the  United  States  from  a 
government  in  order  to  Freedom,  into  a  government  in  order  to  Slavery. 

This  letter  of  the  Bishop  of  the  Diocese  of  Vermont  is,  I  understand, 
the  first  issue  and  assault  upon  Freedom,  of  this  Union  loving  and 
Scripture  reverencing  Society.  I  should  greatly  admire  at  the  Society’s 
method  of  commencing  an’ attempt  which  may  prove  to  be  one  of  consi¬ 
derable  difficulty  before  it  is  finished,  were  it  not  that  the  most  skilful 
generals  sometimes  begin  a  battle  with  the  lightest  kind  of  skirmishers, 
merely  as  a  prelude  to  something  efficient.  If  such  examples  were  in 
the  mind  of  the  Society  its  judgment  is  not  to  be  gainsayed. 

Before  considering  the  Bishop’s  opinions  in  detail,  it  is  obvious  to 
remark,  that  the  question  of  the  “  Scriptural  Authority  for  Slavery” 
is  one  simply  of  interpretation — a  remark  which  is  made  that  I  may 
preclude  the  accusation  of  denying  the  authority  of  Scripture,  (it  being  a 


4 


very*  common  trick  of  some  clerical  polemics,  when  hard  pressed,  to  cry 
“  infidel”) “even  if  I  should  doubt  the  interpretation  of  it  by  the  Bishop 
or  the  Diocese  of  Vermont. 

Preliminary,  also,  are  certain  facts  of  History,  not  without  impor¬ 
tant  bearings  upon  interpretation  of  Scripture  in  regard  to  slavery,  at 
least  for  Christians.  These  facts  of  history  go  to  show  that,  from  the 
time  of  the  Apostles,  there  has  been,  in  the  hearts  of  Christians,  a  feeling, 
ever  becoming  deeper,  and  spreading  wider,  that  slavery  is  incompatible 
with  the  spirit  and  principle^  of  Christianity.  True,  the  Bishop  makes 
the  audacious  assertion,  that  “  no  scruple  was  entertained  on  the  subject 
(of  slavery)  until  the  close  of  the  last  century,  when  the  new  light  burst 
forth  which  now  dazzles  the  eyes  of  so  many  worthy  people.”  Others, 
of  the  same  pro-slavery  stripe  with  the  Bishop, have  some  scruples  at  such 
palpable  falsification  of  history,  but  with  an  instinctive  hatred  of  this 
fact,  falsify  history  equally,  but  more  prudently,  by  asserting  that  the 
feeling  is  fallacious,  and  had  its  origin  “  far  back,  in  subtle  heresies  of  an 
early  period  of  Christianity.” 

The  very  early  existence  of  this  feeling  after  the  Apostles — whose 
directions  annihilate  slavery  in  everything  except  the  naked  legal  relation — 
is  shown  by  documents  of  the  very  first  century,  which  prove  that  it  was 
the  custom  to  redeem  Christian  slaves  at  the  expense  of  the  church. 
Prom  this  time  forward  the  evidence  is  abundant,  that  the  church  ex¬ 
pended  immense  sums  in  redeeming  its  members  from  slavery,  and  in  the 
purchase  of  captives  taken  in  war,  that  they  might  not  be  sold  into 
slavery.  By  the  decrees  of  councils,  even  the  ornaments  and  sacred 
utensils  of  the  church  might  be  used  for  these  purposes.  In  most  other 
respects  the  influence  of  the  church  was  decidedly  anti-slavery,  by  ad¬ 
vising  and  encouraging  manumission;  by  declaring  the  marriage  of  slaves 
sacred ;  by  admitting  slaves  into  the  ministry  and  sacred  offices  of  the 
church,  whereupon  they  became,  ipso  facto,  free;  by  offering  the  sanctuary 
of  the  churches  to  slaves  who  fled  from  harsh  treatment;  by  the  threat  of 
ecclesiastical  penalties  to  severe  masters,  and  by  taking  emancipated 
slaves  under  its  profec-tion.  True,  the  Bishops  and  Abbots  and  others 
continued  for  a  long  time  to  hold  slaves,  partly  from  a  seeming  necessity 
as  society  was  then  constituted,  and  partly,  no  doubt,  from  the  all  but 
universal  inconsistency,  more  or  less,  of  men’s  conduct  with  their  prin¬ 
ciples: 


5 


That  this  inconsistency  was  felt,  anti  that  the  Christian  heart  ac 
snowledged  the  incompatibility  of  slavery  with  Christianity,  is  admirably 
shown  by  the  prevalent  custom,  during  the  middle  ages,  of  manumission 
at  death,  (when  most  men  begin  to  be  honest)  and  sometimes  before,  “  for 
the  o-ood  of  the  soul  ”  of  the  testator,  or  of  the  souls  of  his  ancestors. 

The  following,  which  is  a  charter  of  manumission  by  a  French  Prince, 
may  serve  as  a  specimen. 

“  For  the  good  of  the  soul  of  our  father  Loys  (Louis)  and  of  our 
own,  and  of  the  souls  of  all  our  predecessors ;  all  the  serfs  which  we  call 
homines  de  corps ,  (body  servants)  who  are  at  Orleans  and  the  villages  ad¬ 
jacent,  we  absolve  forever  from  all  yoke  of  servitude,  them,  their  sons, 
and  their  daughters,  and  we  will  that  they  be  equally  free  as  if  they  had 
never  been  serfs.  Done  at  Paris,  in  the  year  of  the  Incarnation  of  our 
Lord,  1180.”  Capejigue,  Hist.  Phil.  Auguste,  1.  230 

In  1315,  the  King  of  France  declared  by  a  proclamation,  the  natura  l 
right  of  all  men  to  freedom,  and  offered  conditional  liberty  to  the  serfs 
upon  his  own  estates. 

The  following  throws  light  in  more  directions  than  one  : 

“The  Hoty  Fathers,  Monks  and  Friars,  had  in  their  confessions 
(that  is,  of  the  laity,)  and  especially  in  their  extreme  and  deadly  sick¬ 
ness,  convinced  the  laity  how  dangerous  a  practice  it  was  for  one  Chris¬ 
tian  man  to  hold  another  in  bondage  ;  so  that  temporal  men,  by  reason  of 
that  terror  in  their  consciences,  were  glad  to  manumit  all  their  villeins. 
But  the  said  Holy  Fathers,  with  the  Abbots  and  Friars,  did  not  in  like 
sort  by  theirs ; '  for  they  also  had  a  scruple  in  conscience  to  impoverish 
and  despoil  the  Church  so  much  as  to  manumit  such  as  were  bond  to  their 
churches,  or  to  the  manors  which  the  church  had  gotten  ;  and  so  kept  their 
villeins  still.”  Sir  Thomas  Smith ,  Commonwealth,  B,  in.  c.  x. 

Enough  has  been  said  to  show  to  what  influence,  working  deep  and 
wide  in  Christian  hearts  and  communities  from  the  time  of  the  Apostles, 
(an  influence  which  the  Bishop  says  did  not  exist  till  the  end  of  the  last 
century,  and  then  and  since  only  as  a  “  popular  delusion,”)  is  owing 
the  great  fact  that,  at  the  commencement  of  the  Deformation,  Slavery 
was  all  but  extinct  in  every  part  of  Europe.  “  It  was,”  says  Guizot, 
“  by  putting  an  end  to  the  cruel  institution  of  slavery,  that  Christianity 
extended  its  mild  influence  to  the  practice  of  war,”  (that  is,  by  destroying 
the  demand  for  captives). 

“  It  is  not,”  says  Robertson,  “  the  authority  of  any  detached  precept 
in  the  Gospel,  but  the  spirit  and  genius  of  the  Christian  Religion,  more 


6 


powerful  tliau  any  particular  command,  which  has  abolished  the  practice 
of  slavery  throughout  the  world.” 

This,  of  course,  is,  to  be  taken  with  some  limitation  in  regard  to  Ne¬ 
gro  slavery — but  how  long  is  it  since,  if  it  was  not  wholly  abolished,  it 
was  wholly  condemned,  in  the  conscience  and  intellect  of  every  Christian 
man?  In  1818,  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
North  and  South ,  declared  unanimously ,  that  slavery  is  utterly  inconsis¬ 
tent  with  Christianity,  in  language  which  the  Bishop  would  pronounce 
slanderous  and  inflammatory.  And  at  that  period,  and  later,  no  slave¬ 
holder  in  the  United  States  pretended  that  slavery  was  not  a  misfortune,  a 
curse,  and  an  immorality  not  to  be  defended,  but  only  apologized  for  un¬ 
til  it  could  be  got  rid  of. 

Now,  what  was,  and  is,  in  relation  to  Scripture  interpretation,  and 
“  Scriptural  authority  for  slavery,”  the  meaning  of  this  greatest,  most  un¬ 
deniable,  and  most  pregnant  fact  of  modern  history?  x\n  institution 
which  was  universal,  which  was,  as  it  were,  the  ineradicable  foundation 
of  society,  was  inwrought  into  all  its  most  intimate  structure,  was  de¬ 
fended  by  some  of  the  strongest  interests  and  passions  of  human  nature, 
has  all  but  utterly  perished  and  become  extinct,  because  a  still  small 
voice,  but  ever  audible  and  imperative  in  the  human  conscience,  has  firmly 
pronounced  it,  under  all  its  protean  forms,  incompatible  with  Christianity 
— the  Divine  Leaven  constantly  refusing  to  assimilate  it.  What  is  the 
meaning,  Bishop,  in  relation  to  “  Scriptural  authority  for  Slavery,”  of 
this  unanimous  utterance  of  the  Church  universal,  in  the  midst  of  which 
is  Christ  ? 

Let  us  suppose  an  Ecumenical  Council  of  the  Church,  consisting  not 
only  of  Bishops  and  Clergy, but  of  every  true  member  of  the  Church  on  earth, 
and  let  the  question  before  the  Council  be  :  What  is  the  true  relation  of 
Christianity  to  American  Slavery  by  the  authority  of  Scripture  ? — to 
American  Slavery  as  a  permanent  system,  and  perpetual  relation  of 
man  to  man  ? — is  this  System  in  harmony  with  the  spirit  and  aims  of 
Christianity,  by  a  true  interpretation  of  Scripture?  The  NO!  would 
be  as  when  seven  thunders  uttered  their  voices.  Will  the  Bishop  deny 
that  such  would  be  the  decision  of  the  Council?  Would1  he  object  to  the 
presence  of  the  laity,  or  to  some  others  that  he  might  reckon  hereti¬ 
cal?  Let  all  retire  except  the  Clergy  and  Bishops  of  his  own  Church, 
each  of  undoubted  Apostolical  succession — would  the  decision  be  different, 


7 


or  more  than  slightly  less  unanimous?  Nay,  let  the  question  be  referred 
to  the  Episcopal  Church  of  the  United  States  alone,  which  has  the  most 
shamelessly  pro-slavery  clergy  on  the  face  of  the  earth,  and  the  Noes 
would  have  it  by  an  overwhelming  majority. 

Is  it  possible,  now,  to  have,  or  to  conceive  of,  a  more  authoritative 
interpretation  of  Scripture  than  by  this  method  ?  Dare  the  Bishop,  as  a 
good  Churchman,  deny  its  authority  ?  Will  the  Bishop  refuse  to  hear 
the  Church  ?  Then  I  have  the  very  highest  warrant  for  saying  that  he 
is  to  be  accounted  of  as  “  a  heathen  man  and  a  publican.” 

This  method,  then — giving,  by  the  acknowledgment  of  all  Christians, 
the  highest  and  final  decisions  on  Scripture  interpretation — having  placed 
the  Bishop  in  a  very  lean  minority,  the  question  of  “  Scriptural  author¬ 
ity  for  Slavery  ”  might  rest  here  for  all  Christians,  for  men  “  calling 
themselves  Christians ,”  and  specially  for  all  Bishops. 

Sophistry,  however,  for  minds  unaccustomed  to  logical  thought,  and 
especially  sophistry  skilfully  addressed  to  ignorance  for  the  very  purpose 
•  of  deception ,  camiot  be  counteracted  by  mere  demonstration  of  the  truth. 
There  is  thrown  upon  the  defenders  of  truth  the  ignoble  and  nasty  neces¬ 
sity  of  uncoiling  all  the  snaky  folds  of  the  sophistry  itself,  so  that  it  may 
be  visible  and  palpable  to  all  men.  That  these  remarks  are  applicable  to 
the  character  and  purpose  of  the  Bishop’s  letter  I  mean  to  make  undeni¬ 
able  before  I  have  done  with  it.  The  time  for  sojt  words  is  past. 

I  assure  the  Bishop  that  it  is  with  feelings  of  unaffected  grief  and 
humiliation,  that  I  say  this ;  and  that  there  should  be  occasion,  in  a 
Christian  comhiunity,  and  community  of  free  men,  to  defend  Christian¬ 
ity  against  the  monstrous  accusation,  ly  a  Christian  man ,  that  it  ap¬ 
proves  and  justifies,  as  a  permanent  system  of  relations  of  man  to  man, 
American  Slavery.  The  wish  rises  incessantly  to  my  lips :  Oh,  that  an 
enemy  had. done  this  !  some  heathen,  some  infidel,  or  at  least  a  Jew  ! 

I  shall  dispose  of  the  Bishop’s  “  array  of  positive  proof  ”  in  as  few 
words  as  possible.  For  I  feel  an  irrepressible  disgust  at  entering  upon  the 
exposure  of  misstatements,  and  specious  and  insidious,  but  false, arguments 
and  assumptions,  which  have,  every  one, been  refuted,  over  and  over  again, 
for  the  thousandth  time,  but  brought  out  again  (the  trick  of  all  demagog¬ 
ues)  as  if  they  were  new,  or  at  least  unanswered,  and  unanswerable. 

The  first  point  made  by  the  Bishop,  is  of  course  the  prophecy  of 
Noah.  “  Cursed  be  Canaan,  a  servant  of  servants  shall  he  be  to  his 


s 


brethren.  Blessed  bo  the  Lord  God  of  Shem,  and  Canaan  shall  be  his 
servant.  God  shall  enlarge  Japhet,  and  he  shall  dwell  in  the 
tents  of  Shem,  and  Canaan  shall  be  his  servant.” 

The  first  thing  the  Bishop  does  here,  is  coolly  to  assume  as  true,  that 
of  the  truth  of  which  he  not  only  offers  no  proof,  but  of  the  truth  of 
which  there  exists  no  proof  or  probability  whatever,  viz.,  that  the  negroes 
are  the  posterity  of  Ham.  The  ablest  interpreters,  including  those  of 
the  Jews,  believe  that  the  prophecy  had  its  complete  fulfilment  in  the  con¬ 
quest  of  Canaan  by  the  Jews — an  interpretation  which  lies  upon  the  very 
lace  of  the  passage.  .Yet  here  is  a  whole  race  of  mankind  doomed  to  end¬ 
less  earthly  malediction,  and  shut  out  from  all  the  proper  ends  of  human¬ 
ity,  made  a  little  higher  than  the  brutes ,  by  quietly  and  insidiously  tak¬ 
ing  for  granted  that  which  is  utterly  baseless  and  void  of  proof.  The 
Bishop  is  a  lawyer ;  suppose  he  had  a  case  in  court  which  involved  the 
legal  right  to  a  great  inheritance,  would  he  expect  to  gain  his  client’s 
cause  by  such  proofs  of  descent  as  can  be  brought  to  show  that  the  Ne¬ 
groes  are  the  posterity  of  Ham  i  Let  it  be  supposed  that  a  man  is  to  be 
rightfully  adjudged  to  slavery  upon  legal  proofs  made  that  he  is  one  of 
that  unlucky  family — is  there  a  court,  in  Christendom  or  out  of  Christen¬ 
dom,  that  would  entertain  the  question  for  a  moment  ?  What,  then,  is 
to  be  thought  of  the  head  and  of  the  heart  of  the  man,  who,  so  far  as  in 
him  lies,  authorises  and  promotes  the  terrible  practical  and  actual  results 
of  the  conclusions  which  he  draws  from  such  premises.  I  wish  the  Soci¬ 
ety  for  the  propagation  of  Slavery ,  joy  of  their  champion. 

The  second  thing  which  the  Bishop  does  at  this  point, ‘is  to  assume 
agaiu  that,  whatever  is  loret©ld  thereby  becomes  right ,  right  not  only  in 
relation  to  God  and  His  Providence,  but  right  in  the  human  agents  by 
whom  the  prophecy  is  fulfilled.  The  divine  right  and  justification  of  the 
slaveholder  are  established  b.y  the  fact  that  slavery  was  foretold.  The 
slaveholder  thereby  becomes  God’s  faithful  and  obedient  servant,  entitled 
to  the  Divine  approbation  and  reward.  Some  parts  of  Holy  Scripture 
are  evidently  not  aware  of  this  Episcopal  method  of  interpretation.  They 
on sht  to  be  altered  as  follows  :  “  Him  being  delivered  by  the  determinate 
counsel  of  God,  ye  have  with  holy  hands  crucified  and  slain.”  “Blessed 
is  the  man  whose  sins  are — -foretold”  “  Verily  I  say  unto  you  that  one 
©f  you  shall  betray  me.  The  Son  of  man  goeth  as  it  is  written  of  him, 


and  blessings  upon  the  man  by  whom  the  Son  of  man  is  betrayed ;  it  was 
good  for  that  man  that  he  was  born” 

Now,  here  is  a  kind  of  logic  from  which  these  and  many  suchlike 
improved  Scripture  readings  follow  inevitably  ;  and  from  this  same  logic 
is  concluded  the  rightful  ness  and  Divine  sanction  of  the  most  outrageous 
and  shameless  oppression  and  injustice — considering  that  it  is  Christian — 
which  the  world  has  ever  beheld.  A  fact  which  shows  to  what  incredible 
extent  a  predetermined  conclusion  may  infatuate  a  man  in  his  methods  of 
arriving  at  it ;  uuless,  indeed,  we  are  compelled  rather  to  infer  (so  in¬ 
credible  is  it  that  a  sane  mind  should  thus  impose  upon  itself)  that,  in¬ 
stead  of  an  unconscious  self-delusion,  there  is  a  conscious  purpose  to  de¬ 
ceive  others  by  reasoning  known  to  be  false.  Let  slavery  still  hold  on  to 
the  curse  of  Canaan — nothing  can  more  effectually  demonstrate  the  utter 
poverty  of  its  logical  resources. 

The  second  prop  in  the  Bishop’s  argument  could  not  be  other  than 
“Abraham  the  friend  of  Cod.”  Here  again,  at  Abraham,  the  Bishop  si¬ 
lently  assumes ,  and  [  doubt  not  innocently  this  time,  that  whatever  a  good 
man  does  is,  ipso  facto,  right,  and  of  Divine  right.  Does  not  the  Bishop 
perceive  that,  unless  he  proves  this,  instead  of  taking  it  for  granted,  his 
argument  from  the  fact  that.  Abraham  was  a  slaveholder,  is  fatallv  vitia- 
ted,  good  for  nothing,  in  fact,  without  this  proof?  But  is  it  so  that  all 
the  actions  of  good  men  are  good  ?  David  was  a  man  after  Cod’s  own 
heart — what  says  the  Bishop  to  some  of  David’s  actions?  Yet  the  exam¬ 
ple  of  Abraham  never  fails  to  be  appealed  to  a*  the  impregnable  argu¬ 
ment  in  defence  of  slavery. 

But  there  is  another  trait  in  Abraham’s  character,  and  that  of  th* 
other  patriarchs,  which  troubles  the  slaveholders  and  especially  the  Bish¬ 
ops.  They  were  polygamists.  Now,  the  Bishop  of  Salt  Lake  (no  of¬ 
fence,  [  use  the  word  in  its  etymological  sense)  uses  identically  the  same 
argument  from  the  example  of  the  patriarchs  in  defence  of  polygamy,  a* 
the  Bishop  of  V'errnont  does  in  defence  of  slavery.  The  arguments  are 
perfectly  parallel  in  every  point.  No  wit  of  man  or  skill  of  logic  can 
detect  any  difference  between  them.  Yet  the  Bishop  of  Vermont  reckon* 
the  argument  to  be  good  in  one  case  and  good  for  nothing  in  the  other. 
He  of  Salt  Lake  reckons  it  good  in  both  cases.  He  is  much  the  better 
reasoner.  For  there  is  no  conceivable  method  by  which  those  who  take 


10 


the  one  can  avoid  the  logical  necessity  of  taking  the  other  along  with  it. 
He  who  rejects  the  one,  must  by  the  same  necessity  reject  the  other  also. 
Yet  proslavery  logic  takes  and  rejects  at  pleasure,  here  and  on  other  oc¬ 
casions,  where  there  is  not  the  slightest  logical  difference,  and  calls  it  ar¬ 
gument. 

The  Bishop  arrives,  at  length,  in  his  “  array  of  positive  proof,”  at 
the  laws  of  Moses,  where  his  satisfaction  would  be  unalloyed,  were  it  not 
for  the  unlucky  dilemma,  worse  than  in  the  case  of  Abraham,  out  of 
which  the  squirmings  of  the  most  snaky  sophistry  can  never  deliver  him. 

I  do  not  know  whether  the  Bishop  is  aware  that,  among  all  honest  rea- 
soners,  an  argument  which  proves  too  much  is  rejected  as  vicious  and  un¬ 
reliable.  One  would  suppose  that  he  had  never  heard  of  this  rule  of  logic 
from  his  own  method  of  reasoning. 

Here  again,  at  Moses,  the  Bishop  assumes  (what  will  the  Bishop’s 
“  Scriptural  authority  for  slavery  ”  rest  on,  when  all  his  airy  fabric  of 
assumptions  is  taken  away?)  that,  certain  municipal  regulations,  enacted 
lor  an  ancient  small  tribe  of  men  in  peculiar  circumstances,  are  enact¬ 
ments  of  perpetual  obligation  for  all  mankind.  No,  I  wrong  the  Bishop. 
He  is  not  so  honest  as  that.  He  asserts  this  of  such  of  these  regulations 
as  he  likes,  and  denies  the  authority  of  the  rest. 

A  rude  and  ignorant,  and  peculiarly  obstinate  tribe  of  men,  was  to 
be  educated,  and  gradually  elevated  to  a  higher  form  of  civilization  than 
that  of  the  nations  around  them.  But  that  “  which  was  perfect  ”  could 
not  be  realized  at  once,  for  the  same  reason  that  St.  Paul  was  obliged  to 
feed  the  early  Christians  with  milk  and  not  with  meat,  because  they  were 
not  able  to  bear  it.  A  mild,  carefully  regulated,  and  as  many  able  ex¬ 
positors  think,  limited  slavery  (for  the  question  whether  all  slaves  were 
set  free  at  the  Jubilee,  is  still  in  dispute)  was  'permitted  them,  (for  they 
were  not,  as  the  Bishop  asserts,  commanded  to  enslave  their  neighbors)  but 
so,  also,  polygamy  and  divorce  at  will  were  permitted  and  regulated.  These 
customs,  universal  at  that  period,  and  passionately  adhered  to  by  barba¬ 
rous  men — though  evil  in  themselves — it  was  found  necessary  rather  to 
regulate  and  restrain,  than  wholly  to  abrogate.  But  while  the  rules  per¬ 
mitted  them,  'principles  were  at  the  same  time  announced,  which,  in  pro¬ 
portion  as  they  wrought  in  the  character  of  the  nation,  tended  to  their 
extinction.  For  the  spirit  of  the  teachings  of  the  Old  Testament  alone 
makes  it  obvious  that  all  these  customs  were  permitted  for  the  same  rea 
on  that  Christ  has  given  in  regard  to  o?ie  of  them,  viz.,  the  hardness  o 


the  Jewish  heart.  That  there  was  felt  to  be  some  inherent  injustice,  in 
the  slavery  practiced  towards  the  heathen,  is  plain  from  the  fact  that  the 
Jews  were  not  permitted  to  “  oppress  ”  their  brethren  with  the  same. 
But  under  Christ  there  is  neither  Jew  nor  Gentile,  Greek  nor  Barbarian  ; 
the  wall  of  partition  is  taken  away,  and  all  men  are  brethren. 

Certain  things,  also,  were  prohibited  to  the  Jews,  as  usury,  and  cer¬ 
tain  others  were  enjoined  and  made  imperative.  Now,  the  Bishop’s  ar¬ 
gument  in  defence  of  slavery  here  is  incurably  vicious,  irretrievably  de¬ 
fective,  by  proving  too  much.  Here  is  a  dilemma  for  the  defenders  of 
slavery  by  the  authority  of  Moses,  from  which  the  most  slimy  and  slip¬ 
pery  logical  eel  can  never  get  out.  For  if  slavery  is  permitted  to  all 
Christians,  because  it  was  permitted  to  the  Jews,  then,  inevitably,  polyg¬ 
amy  is  permitted  to  all  Christians  for  the  same  reason,  so  far  as  regards 
the  authority  of  Moses.  If  the  one  is  of  universal  validity  by  this  au¬ 
thority,  tneu  so  is  the  other.  If,  moreover,  what  was  'permitted  to  the 
Jews  is  therefore  permitted  to  Christians,  then  what  was  prohibited  to 
Jews,  is  prohibited  to  Christians  and  what  was  commanded  to  Jews,  is 
also  commanded  to  Christians.  The  slavery  men  must  take  all 
or  nothing.  There  is  no  possible  escape  from  this  necessity,  except  hy  the 
grossest  violation  of  all  the  rules  of  honest  reasoning.  This  is  so  plain, 
that  none  but  the  most  fool-hardy  sophist  would  attempt  to  evade  it,  and 
none  but  the  most  impudent  sophist  would  deny  it.  But  the  slaveholders, 
and  especially  the  Bishops,  eschew  polygamy,  and  the  prohibition  of  tak¬ 
ing  interest  of  their  countrymen  for  money,  and  by  so  doing,  cut  them¬ 
selves  off  from  all  Mosaic  defence  of  slavery. 

The  Bishop  asserts,  however,  that  slavery  is  authorized  by  the  Al¬ 
mighty  in  the  last  of  the  Ten  Commandments.  “  There  needs  no  labo¬ 
rious  argument,”  to  quote  the  indignant  words  of  a  distinguished  English 
Jew,  “  to  refute  this  so  audacious  representation,”  thrusting  into  the  Ten 
Commandments  the  idea  of  property  in  man.  Here  is  just  another  of 
the  Bishop’s  gratuitous  assumptions,  namely,  that  wherever  the  English 
Bible  uses  the  word  servant,  the  original  means  slave.  Whence  it  follows 
that  all  officers  of  the  State  are  the  State’s  slaves,  that  under  a  monarchy 
the  officers  of  the  government  are  the  king’s  slaves,  that  all  good  men 
are  God’s  slaves, that  the  Apostles  were  Qhrist’s  slaves,  and  that  St.  Paul 
and  his  fellow-laborers  were  slaves  of  the  Corinthian  Church.  The  pur¬ 
pose  of  the  Tenth  Commandment,  and  its  only  purpose ,  is  to  forbid  cove¬ 
tousness,  and  it  illustrates  its  meaning,  among  other  ways,  by  allusion  to 
a  relation  common  and  necessary  always  and  everywhere,  (and  therefor*  ^ 


12 


thfc  application  of  the  command  to  it  .is  of  universal  validity)  that  is,  the 
relation  of  laborer  and  employer.  ’  It  forbids  unjust  and  selfish  inter¬ 
ference  with  that  arrangement  prohibition,  by  the  way,  which  both 
men  and  women,  now  and  here,  where  there  are  no  slaves,  would  do  well 
to  take  heed  of.  The  command,  however,  being  not  to  covet  slaves  in 
the  Bishop’s  opinion,  he  would,  perhaps,  justify  the  coveting  and  sedu¬ 
cing  away  of  free  laborers,  on  the  principle  that  whatever  is  not  prohi¬ 
bited  is  among  “  ©served  rights”).  The  commandment  does  not  express, 
or  imply  any  opinion  in  regard  to  the  relations  by  which  it  is  illustrated 
except  that  tney  were  customary  relations  to  be  regulated  by  it,  just  as 
other  relations  both  good,  and  bad  (as  polygamy  and  divorce)  were  regu¬ 
lated  by  other  laws  of  Moses.  If  therefore,  ii  could  be  made  certain  that 
there  is  an  allusion  to  slaves  in  the  commandment  it  would  not  help  the 
matter.  That  the  regulation  of  %  custom  proves  its  rightful  ness,  proves 
too  much  for  the  Bishop.  The  prohibition,  in  its  utmost  extent,  amounts 
to  this,  that  men  are  not  to  be  grasping  and  intermeddling  in  regard  to 
the  legal  lights  and  property  of  others.  But  to  conclude,  therefore,  that 
all  legal  property  has  been  justly  acquired  is  a  feat  that  no  logic  except 
the  Bishop’s  could  accomplish.  To  prove  besides,  that  the  command  : 
“  Thou  shalt  not  covet,”  authorizes  slavery,  which  not  only  covets,  but 
grasps,  and  appropriates  by  force,  all  that  another  has,  and  does,  and  is, 
both  the  man’s  property  and  himself — this  feat  even  the  Bishop’s  logic 
can  never  perform. 

What  honest  argument,  then,  can  be  drawn  from  the  Old  Testament,  in 
.defence  of  Christian  slavery  ?  None,  none  whatever. 

The  Bishop  having  established— -as  far  as  his  kind  of  logic  can  prove 
anything — the  “  scriptural  authority  for  slavery”  out  of  the  law  of  Mo¬ 
ses,  seems  very  desirous  to  have  it  understood,  aud  uses  some  very  char¬ 
acteristic  arguments  to  make  it  appear,  that  this  law  was  not  abolished  by 
tilt  Christian  dispensation.  Heaven  defend  !  If  this  is  so,  what  life¬ 
long  guilt  lies  upon  the  soul  of  the  uncircumcised  Bishop  !  and  what  hec¬ 
atombs  of  trespass-offerings  are  due  from  all  of  us !  As  the  question  is 
not  of  the  slightest  consequence  in  the  discussion  of  Christian  slavery,  I 
allude  to  it  only  as  another  specimen  of  the  Bishop’s  mode  of  reasoning. 
The  Bishop,  however,  evidently  thinks  otherwise — it  being  important,  it 
would  seem,  in  his  estimation,  to  confirm  the  authority  of  Moses 
in  regard  to  slavery  by  the  authority  of  St.  Paul.  He  risks 
the  assertion  (which  after  some  search  I  find  no  adjective  fitly  to 


IS* 

characterise)  that  the  law  of  Moses  was  not  abolished  by  Christianity,  in 
order  to  conclude  that  slavery  was  not  abolished  by  Christianity.  And 
after  quoting  St.  Paul  profusely  on  the  subject,  says  “  the  evidence  of  the 
New  Testament  is  thus  complete,  plainly  proving  that  the  institution  of 
slavery  was  not  abolished  by  the  Gospel.”  He  informs  us,  also,  that 
“  Christ  lived  in  the  midst  of  slavery  maintained  over  the  old  heathen 
races  in  accordance  with  the  Mosaic  law,”  thus  implying  that  the  slavery 
spoken  of  in  the  New  Testament,  was  a  continuation  of  the  Mosaic  slave¬ 
ry.  In  the  opinion  of  all  competent  scholars,  however,  Mosaic  slavery 
had  become  wholly  extinct  before  the  time  of  Christ ;  and  certainly  the 
language  of  St.  Paul  has  no  relation  whatever  to  Jewish  slavery.  This 
is  a  fact  of  of  some  consequence,  as  we  shall  see  bye  and  bye. 

The  Bishop’s  defence  of  slavery  from  the  New  Testament  is  plausi- 
bl  e,  and  skilfully  put,  and  doubtless,  in  his  opinion,  the  New  Testament 
gives  undeniable  authority  for  slavery  as  a  permanent  Christian  institu¬ 
tion.  But  if  this  is  really  so,  how  is  to  be  explained  the  fact,  already 
mentioned,  of  undeniable  doubts  and  uneasiness  of  conscience  in  Chris¬ 
tian  men  in  regard  to  slavery,  increasing  from  the  Apostles  down,  until 
the  Church  universal  decided  that  the  Bishop’s  interpretation  is  in¬ 
correct  ? 

Let  us  see  if  this  remarkable  fact  can  be  explained  without  accusing 
all  Christendom  of  being  persistently  contaminated  with  a  “  subtle  heresy 
originating  far  back  in  an  early  period  of  Christianity”;  or  of  being  un¬ 
der  the  influence  of  “  popular  delusion  ”  and  “  false  philanthropy.”  If, 
on  the  contrary,  it  should  appear,  that,  instead  of  a  subtle  heresy  in  all 
Christian  minds,  there  is  a  subtle  sophism  in  the  pro-slavery  argument 
from  the  New  Testament,  as  there  is  a  most  gross  one  in  that  from  the 
Old  Testament,  then,  it  may  he  that  the  Bishop  will  admit  the  offence  of 
Christendom,  in  thinking  differently  from  himself,  to  be  more  than  “  pal¬ 
liated,”  perhaps  he  will  condescend  to  “  excuse  ”  it. 

Fir.'t,  it  is  necessary  to  repeat  what  has  been  a  thousand  times  said 
and  shown,  (but  what  men  who  adhere  obstinately  to  the  letter,  like  the 
Bishop,  never  comprehend,)  that  Christianity  is  not  a  set  of  rules  in  de¬ 
tail,  like  the  laws  of  Moses,  but  a  system  of  great  principles,  working 
as  a  Divine  leaven  in  the  heart  and  conscience  of  men  and  nations,  most 
often  silently  and  slowly,  to  mould  men  and  states,  in  all  their  relations, 
to  forms  consistent  with  its  own  spirit  and  purposes. 

Second,  this  is  the  only  appropriate  method  of  Christianity.  It 
never,  if  true  to  itself,  interferes  directly  with  the  State.  Christ  always 


14 


refused  to  be  made  king,  or  to  meddle  with  matters  in  legal  dispute.  He 
said  he  came  not  to  enact ,  but  to  “  preach  deliverance  to  the  captives.” 
Yet,  notwithstanding  this  constant  refusal  of  Christianity  to  interfere 
with  Caesar,  its  hope,  its  legitimate  aim,  and  its  effect  is  to  alter,  amend, 
originate,  or  abolish,  more  or  less,  all  the  laws  and  relations  of  so¬ 
ciety. 

Third — neither  Christ  nor  St.  Paul  had  anything  to  do  with  the  Mo¬ 
saic  State  as  such.  It  had  ceased  to  exist.  But  in  regard  to  Mosaic 
rules  which  the  Jews  still  observed,  Christ  expressly  condemns  what  was 
“  said  by  them  of  old  time,”  and  St.  Paul  zealously  combats  the  Chris¬ 
tians  “  zealous  for  the  law,”  and  all  but  ridicules  such  judaizing  teachers 
as  the  Bishop.  He  confirmed  no  Mosaic  slavery  “  not  abolished  by  the 
Gospel.”  He  had  nothing  to  do  with  Jewish  slavery,  but  with  Roman 
slavery,  a  slavery  a  thousand  times  worse  than  the  J ewish,  (the  worst  the 
world  has  ever  seen  except  the  American)  and  thoroughly  mingled  into 
all  the  legal  relations  of  the  Empire.  But  Roman  law  was  not  to  be 
evaded  or  seceded  from. 

Now,  did  the  method,  the  purpose,  or  the  interests  of  Christianity  re¬ 
quire,  or  permit  the  Apostle  to  assume  the  functions  of  the  magistrate, 
and  interfere  directly  with  the  laws  of  the  State  ?  What,  then,  should 
he  have  done  other  than  he  did  do,  (  as  true  Christianity  has  always 
done  with  all  legal  wrongs) — prescribe  the  spirit  of  Christianity  to  con¬ 
trol,  among  Christians,  the  relations  of  master  and  slave,  and  so  eliminate 
from  it  the  injustice  which  constituted,  and  always  constitutes,  its  malum 
in  se  ;  thus  leaving  nothing  of  slavery  but  the  empty  name  and  legal 
form.  Eor  the  malum  in  se  of  slavery  consists  not  in  these,  but  in  its 
animus  and  essential  purpose.  This  purpose,  the  very  life,  and  only  vi¬ 
tal  principle  of  the  thing,  is  to  make  the  slave  the  mere  instrument,  tool, 
of  the  master — an  instrument  exclusively  for  the  ends  of  the  master,  the 
slave  having  no  legal  claim  or  right  whatever  in  relation  to  the  ends  for 
which  he  is  used.  He  is  a  thing,  a  chattel  to  all  intents  and  purposes 
whatsoever.  This  is  the  very  definition  which  slavery,  both  Homan  aid 
American,  gives  of  itself.  All  ends  proper  to  man,  as  man, — implied  in 
his  prescribed  relations  to  God,  and  therefore  of  divine  right  in  the  high¬ 
est  sense — these  ends  of  an  intellectual,  moral,  spiritual,  immortal  being, 
must  give  place,  and  do  give  place,  to — “  the  profit  of  the  master .”  This 
is  to  trample  upon  the  image  of  God.  This  is  essential  injustice.  But, 
plainly,  before  slavery  can  be  consistent  with  Christianity,  its  injustice, 
and  aU  its  injustice  must  be  excluded.  Th aleast  injustice  inherent  in  the 


15 


system  would  vitiate  it  fatally.  Now  here  is  the  point.  This  Slavery 
would  cease  to  be  “  profitable  to  the  master .”  It  has  no  principle  of 
permanence.  It  would  forthwith  die  of  inanition.  A  system  of  slavery 
based  upon  mutual  and  equal  duties  of  master  and  slave,  upon  mutual 
and  equal  benefits,  never  did,  and  never  will  exist.  Individual  examples 
of  a  relation  approaching  this,  and  still  not  ceasing  to  Be  legally  slavery 
may  sometimes  be  found  in  slaveholding  communities,  partly  from  the 
necessity  of  domestic  service  not  otherwise  there  to  be  procured,  and  some- 
times'from  a  sense  of  duty  to  slaves  forbidden  by  slave  law  to  be  eman¬ 
cipated,  or  not  yet  fitted  for  freedom.  But  the  moment  the  system  re¬ 
quires,  by  an  imperative  and  efficient  law,  the  realization  of  such  a  re¬ 
lation,  ipso  facto,  it  perishes.  Now  this  is  just  the  relation  which  St. 
Paul's  slavery  prescribes.  For  let  us  see  how  much  of  real  slavery  was 
left  by  the  language  of  St.  Paul  himself. 

It  is  to  be  remembered  that  all  the  general  exhortations  of  the  Apos¬ 
tle  are  addressed  to  freemen  and  slaves  indifferently,  the  first  churches 
c  onsisting  in  large  proportion  of  slaves. 

“  Fornication,  and  all  uncleanness,  or  covetousness,  let  it  not  be  once  named 
among  you,  as  becometh  saints.” 

“  For  this  is  the  will  of  God,  even  your  sanctification,  that  ye  should  abstain  from 
fornication  ” 

“  To  avoid  fornication,  let  tvery  man  have  his  own  wife,  and  let  every  woman  have 
her  own  husband 

“  Flee  fornication — What  !  know  ye  not  that  your  body  is  the  temple  of  the  Holy 
Ghost  ?” 

Are  southern  slaves  permitted  to  obey  these  precepts?  and  if  not,  is  it 
not  because  it  would  diminish  the  “  profit  of  the  masters  ?” 

The  Apostle  also  'constantly  insists  upon  the  acquisition  of  knowl¬ 
edge  as  one  of  the  duties  of  Christians.  ITc  prays  that  they  may  in¬ 
crease  in  knowledge ;  that  they  may  be  filled  with  knowledge  ;  that  they 
may  abound  more  and  more  in  knowledge.  He  thanks  God  for  their 
knowledge.  He  commends  them  for  their  knowledge,  and  where  he  finds 
them  ignorant,  whether  in  regard  to  spiritual  or  other  matters,  he  says 
lie  speaks  it  to  their  shame.  And  such  is  the  spirit  and  aim  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  throughout.  Its  purpose  is  to  redeem  and  restore  man  in  all  his 
powers  of  body  and  mind  ;  to  deliver  him,  not  only  from  sin,  but  from 
ignorance  and  consequent  degradation,  that,  being  “  created  a  little  lower 
than  the  angels,”  he  may  offer  to  God,  not  a  stupid  and  brutish  service, 
but  the  intelligent  worship  of  one  made  in  His  own  image.  For  the 
Christian  man,  says  the  Apostle,  “  is  renewed  in  knowledge  after  the  im¬ 
age  of  Him  that  created  him.”  But  that  slaves  should  realize  these  ends 


of  Christianity,  is  not  for  the  interest  of  the  masters.  A  system  based 
upon  the  slavery  of  such  men,  or  of  those  permitted  the  mere  attempt  to 
become  such,  could  not  exist. 

That  the  Apostle  did  not  intend  his  general  exhortations  exclusively 
for  free  men,  (with  another  gospel  for  slaves,  as  they  have  at  the  South,) 
is  evident  from  such  language  as  the  following.  Among  renewed  men, 
Christians,  “  there  is  neither  Greek  nor  Jew.  circumcision  nor  uncircum¬ 
cision,  Barbarian,  Scythian,  bond  nor  free  ;  but  Christ  is  all  in  all*’ 

“  By  one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  into  one  body,  whether  Jews  or 
Gentiles,  whether  bond  or  free.” 

The  relations  of  slavery,  as  between  master  and  slave,  were  of  two 
kinds — where  both  master  and  slave  were  Christians,  and  where  only- 
one  or  the  other  were  Christians.  In  the  first  case,  the  master  was  to 
treat  the  slave  with  kindness,  justice  and  equity  ;  and  the  slave  was  to 
be  honest  and  faithful  in  his  service.  The  slave  was  not  to  fail  of  due 
respect  to  his  master,  because  he  had  been  elevated  to  be  his  master’s 
brother  ;  and  the  master  was  to  consider  the  slave  no  longer  “  as  a  slave , 
but  above  a  slave,  a  brother  beloved .”  Here  in  the  famous  Epistle  to 
Philemon,  (which  I  think  all  men  will  in  due  time  be  ashamed  to  quote, 
or  to  have  quoted,  in  defence  of  slavery)  is  the  key  to  the  whole  relation, 
as  between  Christians.  The  Apostle’s  rules  are  few  and  brief,  but  suffi¬ 
cient  to  change  the  relation  of  master  and  slave  into  that  of  guardian  and 
ward,  or  one  where  mutual  and  equal  duties  and  benefits  were  given  and 
received,  while  the  name  and  legal  status  remained  as  before. 

In  the  case  where  Christian  masters  had  unconverted  slaves,  they 
were  of  course  to  be  treated  with  the  same  justice  as  Christian  slaves. 
And  in  all  cases,  as  St.  Paul’s  language  every  where  implies,  slaves  were 
to  be  entitled  to  all  the  privileges,  and  the  means  of  obeying  all  the  com-' 
mands  and  exhortations,  of  Christianity. 

In  the  case  where  Christian  slaves  had  unbelieving  masters,  a  more 
severe  duty  was  prescribed  to  them.  They  were  to  honor  their  masters, 
and  be  obedient  even  to  those  who  treated  them  unjustly.  The  doctrine 
of  God  must  not  be  subjected  to  reproach  among  the  unbelievers  by  their 
disobedience  to  the  laws.  Nor  the  interess  of  Christianity  brought  into 
danger,  through  them,  by  the  accusation,  that  it  was  hostile  to  the  State. 
They  might  well  be  content  to  suffer  wrong  for  Christ’s  sake.  (And  here 
comes  in  an  every  day  specimen  of  characteristic  Episcopal  and  other 
pro-slavery  logic — that,  because  it  may  be  right,  and  sometimes  a  duty* 


17 


for  the  slave  to  sutler  wrong,  therefore,  it  is  right  lor  slavery  to  infiiet  it.) 
They  could  console  themselves  with  the  thought  that  they  were  Christ’s 
freed  men,  and  remain  with  patience  in  their  condition  rather  than  dishonor 

Him. 

If,  however,  they  had  power  to  be  free,  they  were  to  make  use  of 
it;  for  they  were  Christ’s  servants,  lie  had  bought  them  ;  they  were  not 
to  be  the  slaves  of  men — that  is,  if  it  could  be  properly  avoided.  IT  it 
could  not,  they  were  not  to  be  in  distress  on  that  account. 

Thus,  evidently,  in  the  opinion  of  St.  Paul,  freedom  is  the  proper 
condition  for  man  :  though  slavery  mavlie  one  of  the  forms  ot  sclf-dc- 
nial  to  which  it  maybe  his  duty,  sometimes,  to  submit.  Let  it  be  re¬ 
membered  that  these  opinions  and  exhortations  were  not  addressed  to  men 
who  were  citizens  of  a  Christian  State,  much  less  to  Chris^an  rulers  and 
legislators,  but  to  the  subjects  of  the  most  irresistible  and  cruel  despotism 
which  the  world  has  ever  seen.  If  it  had  been  his  business  to  prescribe 
the  duties  of  the  Roman  government,  he  might,  perhaps,  have  given  di¬ 
rections  which  would  have  rendered  some  of  those  he  did  give  unnecessary. 
St.  Paul,  then,  treated  slavery  as  a  legal  wrong  which  he  had  no  legal 
power  to  redress;  he  therefore,  according  to  the  constant  method  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  without  interfering  with  the  State,  subjected  it  to  such  moral  in¬ 
fluences  as,  for  all  Christians,  tended  to  destroy  it  by  making  it  no  longer 
profitable  to  the  master. 

Let  us  now  look  for  a  moment  at  the  actual  system  of  American 
slavery,  and  See  if,  in  that  which  is  essential  to  its  permanent  existence , 
there  is  any  injustice,  anything  which  hinders  the  purposes  of  Christianity, 
or  disregards  the  exhortations  of  St.  Paul,  any  blemish,  which  could  of¬ 
fend  the  fastidious  moral  sense  of  the  Apostle.  All  laws  for  regulating 
the  relations  of  man  to  man  are  (if  of  divine  right,  for  injustice  can  nev¬ 
er  be  of  divine  right,)  in  order  to  justice.  What,  then,  are  the  laws  of 
the  American  slave  system  ? 

1st. — The  child  of  the  since  follows  the  condition  of  the  mother . 
This  happens  though  the  father  may  have  been  white  for  so  many  genera¬ 
tions,  that  the  child  is  as  white  as  the  father.  The  Bishop  knows  that 
such  cases  are  not  rare  at  the  South.  Are  these  white  slaves  the  chil¬ 
dren  of  Ham,  and  so  rightfully  slaves  by  the  curse  of  Canaan  ?  This 
law,  however,  is  a  necessity  of  slavery,  for  if  the  child  followed  tho  condi¬ 
tion  of  the  father,  not  only  would  Iho  profits  of  t lie  master  b©  greatly  di¬ 
minished,  but  how  long  could  the  system  itself  exist  ? 


i 


18 


2nd. — What  is  the  legal  condition  of  the  children  of  these  slave 
mothers?  The  law  of  South  Carolina  defines  it  for  all  the  States,  as  fol¬ 
lows.  “  Slaves  shall  be  deemed,  sold,  taken,  reputed  and  adjudged  in  law, 
to  be  chattels  'personal  in  the  hands  of  their  owners  and  possessors,  and 
their  executors,  administrators  and  assignees,  to  all  intents ,  constructions 
and  purposes  whatsoever? 

This  law  needs  no  comment  except  to  say  that  it  is  in  full  practical 
operation  to  all  intents  and  purposes.  It  gives  the  master  every  kind 
and  degree  of  power  over  the  slave  which  he  has  over  his  other  domestic 
animals,  only  he  must  not  kill  him,  at  least  not  in  the  presence  of  a  white 
man — except  as  the  law  most  naively  remarks,  when  “  he  dies  under 
moderate  correction?  But  this  law  is  indispensable  to  the  profit  oj  the 
master. 

3rd. — “A  slave  can  make  no  contract,”  not  even  a  contract  of  marriage. 
He  is  never  married.  He  has  no  marital  rights  or  responsibilities.  His 
children  are  propagated  in  the  same  way,  and  for  the  same  reason,  as  the 
progeny  of  his  fellow  animals,  that  is,  for  market,  and  the  profit  of  his 
master.  How,  then,  are  the  commands,  and  exhortations  of  the  Apostle 
in  regard  to  chastity,  and  all  family  relations,  to  be  obeyed?  And  this 
is  not  the  case  of  Christian  slaves  exhorted  to  be  patient  under  heathen 
masters,  but  the  way  in  which  Christian  masters  treat  their  fellow-chris- 
tians,  their  “  brethren  beloved” — and ,proh  scelus ,  they  cpiotethe  Epistle 
to  Philemon  in  justification  of  it !  But  this  is  also  necessary  to  the  jrro- 
fit  of  the  masters. 

4th. —  All  learning  is  by  law  forbidden  to  the  slave.  He  is  made  or  kep 
brutish,  and  then  accused  of  being  only  an  animal.  Are  such  prohibi 
tions  ever  thought  necessary  for  the  restraint  of  other  animals  ?  Every 
human  faculty  or  aspiration  is  repressed,  the  intellect  made  to  remain  la¬ 
tent,  eradicated,  in  fact,  as  far  as  possible,  (“  howbeit  in  understanding 
be  men,”  says  the  Apostle)  because  men  (u  in  understanding  ”)  would  be 
a  very  uncertain  and  unsafe  investment  of  property,  dangerous  “  chat¬ 
tels.”  The  master  could  not  rely  upon  his  profit,  or  be  sure  of  his  safe¬ 
ly.  This  law,  therefore,  is  necessary  in  order  to  these  ends  of  the 
master. 

5th  -A  slave  cannot  be  a  \ witness  against  a  whit  e  person.  He  may  be  sub¬ 
jected  to  any  abuse,  or  even  be  murdered  in  the  presence  of  otherslaves — 
so  he  may  in  the  presence  of  white  men  by  moderate  correction ,  or  at 
any  time  on  the  least  show  of  resistance.  The  absence  o:  this  law 
would  lead  to  great  inconvenience,  and  much  diminish  the  profit  of  the 
master. 


§ 


19 


These,  and  many  other  such  like  laws,  place  the  slave  under  the  ab¬ 
solute  dominion  of  the  master,  body  and  soul,  and  are  necessary,  indis¬ 
pensable,  in  order  to  the  legitimate  and  essential  end  of  slavery,  which, 
says  a  distinguished  Judge  of  North  Carolina,  “  has  nothing  in  common 
with  the  relation  of  parent  and  child,  master  and  apprentice, ”(as  the  Bish¬ 
op  and  sundry  other  D.  Ds.  would  have  us  believe;)  there  is  an  impassable 
gulf  between  them.  In  the  one  case  the  end  in  view,  is  the  happiness  of 
the  youth.  The  end  of  slavery  is  t/ie  profit  of  the  master ,  his  security , 
and  the  public  safety .”  That  is,  the  safety  of  the  slaveholders. 

Here,  then,  we  have,  in  part,  the  American  system  of  slavery,  as.  by 
law  defined  and  established.  Under  which  there  are,  at  present,  four 
millions  of  human  beings,  men  reduced  to  things ,  to  chattels  personal,  to 
all  intents  and  purposes  whatsoever.  And  this  subjection  gives  the  master 
power,  not  only  over  the  body  of  the  slave,  but  over  his  soul,  and  every 
human  faculty,  and  capability,  and  relation ;  or  what  would  be  human 
relations  if  the  slave  were  permitted  to  have  any.  And  this  is  not  a 
mere  nominal  power  suspended  over  the  slave,  but  one — with  few  excep¬ 
tions — ever  in  active  exercise  to  the  fullest  extent. 

The  Bishop,  however, — notwithstanding  this,  one  would  think,  suffi¬ 
ciently  plain  language  of  the  laws,  and  the  recent  pretension  of  Southern 
Senators  in  Congress,  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  makes 
slaves  property  to  add  intents  and  purposes  in  all  the  States  of  the  Union, 
— the  Bishop,  I  say,  cannot  understand  what  it  is  in  the  principle  of 
“  property  in  man  ”  which  “  disgusts  ”  people  ;  and  makes  the  assertion 
beyond  which  even  effrontery  could  not  go,  that  “no  slaveholder  pretends 
that  this  pr  perty  extends  any  further  than  the  right  to  the  labor  of  the 
slave.”  Let  all  men  mark  this  assertion  as  a  characteristic  specimen  of  the 
true  ophidian  logic.  Yes,  a  few  slaveholders  within  the  last  3rear  or  two, 
beginning  to  feel  the  necessity  of  escaping  from  the  “  disgust  ”  and  indig¬ 
nation  of  mankind  at  their  claim  and  laws  of  property  in  man,  have  be¬ 
thought  themselves  of  this  shallow  lie,  which  the  Bishop  has  unjustly 
fathered  upon  all  of  them. 

“  But,  to  have  a  property  in  human  labor,”  the  Bishop  goes  on  to 
say,  “  under  some  form,  is  an  essential  element  in  all  the  work  of  civil- 
zed  society.”  True,  for  once — all  *men  who  in  any  way  employ  oth 
ers,  have  “  a  property  in  human  labor  ” — on  condition  of  paying  for  it. 
But  what  property  have  these  employers  in  these  laborers ,  beyond  a  claim 
to  the  labor  they  have  purchased  ?  Can  these  employers,  moreover ,  for 
their  profit,  control  all  the  physical,  social,  intellectual,  civil,  moral,  spi r 


itual  relations  of  the  laborers  ?  Now,  what  is  the  purpose  of  property 
except  by  the  requisite  use  ot  it  (which  may  be  a  disuse)  to  secure  the 
profit,  pleasure,  safely  of  the  owner  ?  Does  the  slaveowner,  then,  hav¬ 
ing  possessed  himself  of  the  muscular  labor  of  the  slave,  (which  is  the 
only  labor  he  is  capable  of)  cease  to  exercise  any  further  control  over  him 
for  any  of  the  ends  of  property?  Not  in  the  least — the  Bishop  knows  he 
does  not.  The  non-use  of  the  brains  of  the  slave  is  as  necessary  to  the 
ends  of  property  in  him  as  the  ?tse  of  Ids  muscles.  That  which  he  is  for¬ 
bidden  to  do,  is  as  necessary  to  be  not  done ,  as  that  which  lie  is  required 
to  do  is  to  be  done.  All  the  legal  deprivations  of  the  slave  increase  his 
value, — this  is  the  very  purpose  of  them — though  they  do  not  inciease 
the  quantity  of  labor  he  can  perform.  Has  the  owner  no  property  in 

handsome  female  quadroons  when  he  keeps  them,  or  adorns  them  for  mar¬ 
ket,  for  other  purposes  than  labor  ? 

The  Bishop  says,  with  admirable  coolness  :  “  it  is  obvious  that 

slavery  cannot  bind  the  intellect  or  the  soul  !  ”  Yet  one  of  the  most  ac¬ 
cursed  qualities  of  slavery  manifests  itself  in  forbidding  all  cultivation 
of  the  intellect  of  the  slave,  which  is  the  condition  of  its  freedom  ;  and 
a  special  aim  of  the  slave  system  is  to  keep  the  slave’s  soul  in  the  lowest, 
most  degraded,  and  helpless  form  of  slavery,  knowing  very  well  that  free 
souls  make  free  bodies.  Even  the  religion  of  the  slave  is  made  subser¬ 
vient  to  the  profit  of  the  master,  being  often  the  grossest  travestie  of  the 
gospel,  as  might  be  abundantly  shown  by  South  Carolina’s  Episcopal  cate, 
chasms,  and  other  sophisticated  teachings,  intended  to  enslave  his  very 
spirit  to  submission,  through  fear  that  God  is  altogether  such  an  one  as 


his  owner. 

Thus  it  is  obvious  to  the  slightest  reflection  upon  the  slave  system 
that  its  purpose  is  to  enslave  both  body  and  soul,  and  that  the  property- 
interest  of  the  master  extends  not  only  to  “the  right  to  the  labor  of  the 
slave,”  but  to  every  power  of  body  and  mind,  to  every  faculty  and  rela¬ 
tion  of  the  man.  If  this  is  not,  to  have  property  in  man,  it  is  simply  be¬ 
cause  slavery  places  him  in  the  category  of  animals.  Let  the  slaveholders 
adopt  this  honest  method  of  escape  from  the  accusation,  instead  of  the 
lying  pretension  the  Bishop  has  set  up  for  them. 

The  following  from  a  distinguished  Southern  writer,  i)e  Bow,  is  too 
characteristic  to  be  omitted.  Besides  its  blasphemy  A.  has  the  true  pro¬ 
slavery  unction.  It  expresses,  too,  so  exactly  the  Bishop’s  principles, 
hat  T  wonder  he  did  not  quote  it  himself: 


21 


*•  The  Almighty  has  thought  well  to  place  certain  of  His  creatures 
in  certain  fixed  positions  in  this  world  of  ours,  for  what  cause  He  has  not 
seen  fit  to  make  quite  clear  to  our  limited  capacities ;  and  why  an  ass  is 
not  a  man,  and  a  man  is  not  an  ass,  will  probably  forever  remain  a  mys- 
God  made  t  io  world  ;  God  gave  thee  thy  place,  my  hirsute  brother,  and, 
according  to  all  earthly  possibilities  and  probabilities,  it  is  thy  destiny 
there  to  remain,  bray  as  thou  wilt.  From  the  same  great  power  have  our 
sable  friends,  Messrs.  Sambo,  Cuffee  &  Co.,  received  their  position  also. 

*  Alas  !  my  poor  black  brother,  thou,,  like  thy  hirsute 
friend,  must  do  thy  braying  in  xa:n  ’  That  shall  be  as  God  pleases,  Mr. 
He  How,  with  permission,  of  course,  of  South  Carolina. 

Here,  then,  we  have  American  slavery — four  millions  of  men  de¬ 
clared  to  be  chattels  personal,  reduced  to  the  condition  and  relations  of 
domestic  animals  (practically)  in  every  particular.  And  this  is  not  a 
mere  legal  association,  but  as  far  as  the  system  can  accomplish  it,  the 
slave  becomes  a  mere  human  animal.  And,  in  order  to  the  well  rounded 
mid  beautiful  consistency  of  the  system,  these  human  animals,  like  other 
domestic  creatures,  are  propagated  for  sale ;  Virginia  alone  furnishing  for 
market,  of  this  brothel-produce,  not  less  than  ten  millions  of  dollars  worth 
annually. 

This  now,  has  a  bad  look.  The  dislocation  between  Christian 
premises  and  such-  practical  conclusions,  shocks  most  minds  and  hearts. 
Slaveholders  themselves,  some  of  them,  more  logical  if  not  more  sensi¬ 
tive  than  the  Bishop,  start  back  at  such  a  yawning  non  sequitur.  The 
more  progressive  of  them,  therefore,  (just  as  twenty  years  ago  the  pro¬ 
gressives  of  that  period  began  timidly  to  assert  that  slavery  is  not  incon¬ 
sistent  with  the  Christian  religion)  being  hard  pressed  by  this  inconsis¬ 
tency,  propose  a  shorthand  method  of  avoiding  it  by  doing  away  with 
I  he  “  popular  delusion  ”  that  the  negro  is  a  black  man,  while  in  fact  he  is 
only  a  black  animal.  This  is  to  be  the  next  step  in  the  physiological  and 
moral  devclopemont  of  slavery.  It  is  being  rapidly  driven  to  this  in  self- 
defence.  The  adoption  of  this,  as  its  fundamental  dogma,  will  give  an 
admirable  consistency  to  the  system,  furnish  a  complete  logical  base  for 
its  present  practices,  and  fill  up  the  measure  of  its  iniquity. 

Here,  then,  at  length,  I  hope  the  blindest  are  ready  to  see  what  I 
inadvertently  called  a  subtle  sophism  in  the  pro-slavery  argument  from 
the  New  Testament — though  a  grosser  one  can  hardly  be  imagined  ;  al¬ 
ways  excepting  the  Bishop's  argument  from  Ram.  It  is  this.  St.  Paul 


having  toTlo  with  a  most  unjust  and  oppressive  slavery  under  a  jealous 
heathen  government,  did  not  directly  make  war  upon  it,  but  quietly  pre¬ 
scribed,  for  Christians,  such  rules  in  regard  to  it  as  deprived  it  of  its  es¬ 
sential  principle  of  life  and  permanence,  and  left  it  to  its  fate  :  therefore , 
says  the  pro-slavery  argument,  American  slavery,  with  all  its  accursed 
principles  and  practices,  is  ordained  of  Christ,  and  sanctioned  by  Chris¬ 
tianity,  to  be,  of  divine  right,  a  permanent  institution  among  men. 

Now,  is  it  strange,  or  difficult  to  explain,  that,  when  the  truly 
Christian  man,  though  of  the  humblest  intellect,  sees  clearly,  as  all  such 
men  do  see,  the  inherent  and  essential  injustice  of  slavery,  and  especially 
of  American  slavery,  he  should  instinctively  feel,  if  he  does  not  see,  the 
sophistry  of  defending  it  by  the  doctrines  of  Christ  and  the  authority  of 
St.  Paul?  The  Bishop  will  find,  I  think,  in  due  time,  that,  it  is  not  by 
the  influence  of  “  popular  delusion  ”  and  “  false  philanthropy  ”  that  the 
church  universal  has  condemned  slavery ;  and  that  not  for  such  reasons  is 
it  that  all  Christendom  contemplates  American  slavery,  and  its  defenders 
by  “  scriptural  authority,”  with  shame  and  indignation. 

For  all  Christian  hearts,  or  thinking  minds,  the  Bishop’s  k4*Bible 
view  of  Slavery  ”  might  very  well  be  dismissed  here.  But  some  of  his 
answers  to  objections  are  such  logical  curiosities,  that  it  may  be  worth 
while,  by  way  of  amusement,  to  look  at  a  few  of  them. 

The  first  is  a  most  Quixotic  tilt  against  what  the  Bishop  evidently 
considers  the  great  wind-mill  of  the  age  :  the  Declaration  of  Independ¬ 
ence.  Here  are  six  mortal  columns  in  fine  print,  of  what  it  would  be 
unjust  to  school  boys  to  call  school-boydeclamation.  One  knows  not 
whether  to  laush  at  the  ludicrous  confusion  of  Thought,  and  the  ignorance 
of  the  Bishop — if  ignorance  is  the  true  explanation — or,  (if  it  is  not,)  to 
be  indignant  at  the  low  pandering  to  the  ignorance  of  others,  in  a  style 
which  none  but  the  most  vulgar  demagogues  ever  make  use  of.  Here  are 
two  alternatives  by  which  to  account  for  this  extraordinary  episode  in 
the  Bishop’s  Letter ;  which  is  to  be  taken,  I  shall  leave  the  reader  to  de¬ 
cide  for  himself. 

The  Declaration  of  Independence, — (I  beg  pardon  of  the  reader  for 
the  truisms  about  to  be  uttered  in  this  paragraph.  They  are  for  the 
special  benefit  of  the  Bishop  on  the  charitable  hypothesis — which,  how¬ 
ever,  I  fear  may  be  incorrect — of  his  ignorance  of  the  meaning  of  the 
Declaration  of  Independence) — the  Declaration  sets  forth  certain  great 


23 


fundamental  truths  which  ought  to  lie  as  organific  principles  at  the  basis 
of  every  human  State.  First :  “  All  men  are  created  equal.”  Tnat  is, 
a  State  should  not,  and  a  just  State  will  not,  make  men  unequal  before 
the  law.  A  State  should  not  bestow  legal  privileges  and  immunities  upon 
some  of  its  citizens  which  it  denies  to  others.  All  men  should  have  equal 
right  to  whatever  they  may  lawfully  acquire,  however  unequal  their  ac¬ 
quisitions,  or  their  capacities  for  making  them.  Whatever  good  the 
State  is  in  order  to  for  any  of  its  citizens,  that  should  be  open  to  the  fair 
and  impartial  competition  of  all.  Second  :  “  All  men  are  endowed  by 

their  Creator  with  certain  unalienable  rights.”  That  is,  rights  of  which 
they  ought  not  to  be  forcibly,  or  otherwise  unjustly  deprived.  “Among 
these  are  life,” — that  men  ought  not  to  be  wantonly  (as  by  “  moderate 
correction !  ”)  deprived  of  life,  or  without  due  form  of  just  law,  is  to 

most  minds,  a  self-evident  truth — “  Liberty,” — that  slavery  is  contrary 
•  to  natural  right,  and  is  based  u^on  mere  force  and  inherent  injustice  was 
the  voice  of  all  antiquity,  is  of  all  Christendom,  and  of  every  unsophis¬ 
ticated  human  soul,” — And  the  pursuit  of  happiness,” — men  ought  not 
to  be  interfered  with  in  their  choice  and  aims  in  life,  except  so  far  as 
the  law  of  equal  rights  to  all  requires  it. 

Now  the  Bishop  utterly  confuses  and  confounds  these  general  ’prin¬ 
ciples,  which  the  Declaration  says  should  preside  over  the  organization  of 
States,  with  actual  facts  which  exist  in  contravention  of  them;  or — more 
incredible  still — with  the  physical,  mental,  and  other  natural  and  heredi¬ 
tary  differences  of  men.  So  again,  “  inalienable  rights  ”  he  really  sup¬ 
poses  to  mean,  or  else - , rights  of  which  it  is  physically  impos¬ 

sible  to  deprive  men. 

No  man  ought  to  believe  what  is  here  stated  of  the  Bishop  without 
the  evidence  of  more  than  one  witness.  I  am,  therefore,  obliged  to  quote 
his  very  words.  Speaking  of  Ahat  the  Declaration  calls  “  self-evident 
truths,”  he  says  :  “  But  with  due  respect  to  the  celebrated  names  appen¬ 
ded  to  this  document,  I  have  never  been  able  to  comprehend  that  they 
are  “  truths  ”  at  all.  In  what  respect  are  men  “  created  equal,”  when 
every  thoughtful  person  must  be  sensible  that  they  are  brought  into  the 
world  with  all  imaginable  difference  in  body,  mind,  and  in  every  charac¬ 
teristic  of  their  social  position?”  Again  he  says — “If  it  be  said, 
however,  that  the  equality  and  inalienable  rights  of  all  men,  so  strongly 
asserted,  are  only  to  be  taken  in  a  political  sense  (he  concedes  “  that  this 
may  be  the  proper  interpretation  !  ”)  I  cannot  see  how  it  removes  the  dif- 


24 


ficulty. - Because  it  is  perfectly  obvious  that,  since  the  beginning  of' 

human  government,  men  have  been  created  with  all  imaginable  inequality, 
under  slavery,  under  despotism,  under  aristocracy,  under  limited  mon¬ 
archy,  under  every  imaginable  form  of  political  strife  and  political  op¬ 
pression.” 

Again,  behold  what  marvellous  inability  the  Bishop  labors  under. 
“  Neither  am  I  able  to  admit  that  all  men  are  endowed  with  the  inalien¬ 
able  right  to  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness.  Life  is  alienated, 
not  only  by  the  sentence  of  the  law,  but  by  innumerable  forms  of  violence 
and  accident!  (  hmk  of  that,  believers  in  the  inalienable  rights  of  man  !) 
Liberty  is  alienated,  not  only  by  imprisonment, but  by  irresistible  restraints 
of  social  bondage,  Ac.,  #  *  *  *.  so  that  there  is  hardly  an  indi¬ 

vidual  to  be  found  who  lias  really  the  liberty  of  word  and  action  so  con¬ 
fidently  asserted  as  the  inalienable  right  of  all  men.  As  regards  the 
“  pursuit  of  happiness,”  alas  !  what  multitudes  alienate  their  right  to 
it,”  Ac. 

The  Bishop  also  confounds  the  civil  relations  of  man  to  each  other 
with  their  relations  to  God,  and  piously  informs  us  that  all  human  rights 
are  forfeited  by  sin  !  and  that,  “-mankind  have  no  rights  to  claim  at  the 
hand  of  the  Creator  !”  Hence, — oh!  admirable,  and  for  the  Bishop,  char¬ 
acteristic  logic  ! — it  follows  that  they  have  no  rights  to  claim  at  the  hands  of 
their  fellow-man.  I  commend  this  logic,  not  only  to  slaveholders,  but  to 
lawyers  with  bad  cases.  Let  them  plead  that  the  other  party  has  long- 
ago  forfeited  his  rights  in  the  premises  unless  he  can  satisfy  the  court  that 
he  is  not  a  sinner.  ^ 

Moreover  the  Bishop  informs  us  that  inequality  extends  throughout 
the  universe.  There  arc  inequalities  and  diversities  m  the  mineral  king¬ 
dom — in  the  vegetable  kingdom — in  the  animal  kingdom — in  the  races  of 
men — in  forms  of  government — one  star  differeth  from  another — there 
are  Thrones,  Dominions,  Principalities,  and  Powers  in  the  Heavenly 
Places  !  ! 

Now,  from  these  magniloquent  premises  what  follows '!  Why,  that, 
your  right  to  your  dinner  is  not  equal  to  my  right  to  mine,  because  you 
cannot  eat  as  much — that  John’s  rights  as  a  man  arc  not  equal  to  those  of 
Thomas,  because  he  is  not  as  large — that  Jones  has  not  the  same  right  to 
his  property  that  Jenkins  has  to  his,  because  there  is  not  so  much  of  it — 
the  boy  George  has  not  the  same  right  to  make  the  most  of  his  talents  as 
Henry,  because  their  talents  are  unequal — the  rights  of  two  young  men 


to  aspire  to  positions,  honors,  duties,  are  not  equal,  because  the  heights 
to  which  they  can  respectively  attain,  are  unequal — if  God  has  distri¬ 
buted  his  gifts  and  endowments  unequally  to  men  then  their  respective 
rights  to  such  as  he  has  given  them  are  unequal — and  in  general,  if 
the  things  in  which  the  rights  are  invested  are  unequal,  then  the  rights 
themselves  are  unequal,  and  men  are  unequal  in  their  rights.  These 
are  admirable  conclusions  from  the  premises,  and  so  plain  that  they7  need 
no  comment. 

But  the  Bishop  is  quite  sure  there  can  be  no  political  equality,  be¬ 
cause,  he  says,  this  means,  if  it  means  anything,  that  every  man  has  the 
same  right  to  political  office  and  honor,  that  is, (as  he  evidently  means)  to 
the  same  office  and  honor.  The  Bishop’s  confusion  of  ideas  is  plainly  in¬ 
eradicable  !  Does  an  equal  right  to  property  mean  a  right  to  equal 
property  ?  If  not,  then  why  should  equal  right  to  office  mean  a  right  to 
equal  office  ?  Everyman  has  a  right  to  the  property  he  has  lawfully  and 
justly  acquired ;  and  so  every  man  has  a  right  to  the  office  he  has  quali¬ 
fied  himself  for,  and  lawfully  obtained.  Properties  are  unequal,  offices 
are  unequal,  rights  are  not  therefore  unequal. 

Before  leaving  this  part  of  the  subject,  I  wish  to  to  ask  the  Bishop 
a  plain  question  or  two, — and  if  they  are  not  respectful ,  it  is  not  my 
fault — namely,  whether  he  does,  or  did,  when  he  wrote  the  “Bible  view  of 
Slavery,”  really  believe  that  the  authors  of  the  Declaration  of  Indepen¬ 
dence  intended  to  assert  that  “  all  men  are  created  equal  ”  in  respect  to 
size,  color,  race,  health,  talents,  social  position,  and  so  as  to  exclude  all 
other  imaginable  natural  differences?  Or,  did  they,  in  his  opinion,  in¬ 
tend  to  assert  that  men  are  created  equal  in  respect  to  their  actual  polit¬ 
ical  relations,  so  that  if  some  men  are  slaves  all  are  slaves,  if  some  are 
free  all  are  free,  if  some  have  certain  political  rights  or  privileges  or  im¬ 
munities  all  have  the  same,  if  some  are  under  a  particular  form  of  gov¬ 
ernment,  all  are  under  that  form  ?  Or,  when  they  said  that  men  are  en¬ 
dowed  with  certain  inalienable  rights,  among  which  are  life,  &c., — did 
they  intend  to  assert  that  men  cannot  by  force  or  accident  be  deprived  of 
life — that  it  is  physically  impossible  to  divest  men  of  liberty,  by  impris¬ 
onment  or  slavery — and  that  men  never  fail  in  the  pursuit  of  happiness  ? 
Did  the  Bishop  really  believe  that  the  authors  of  the  Declaration  in¬ 
tended  to  make  these  assertions  ?  Or  if  he  did  not — and  he  did  not — 
was  it  JLonest — or  was  it  to  play  demagogue — to  imply,  and  take  for 
granted,  that  they  so  intended,  and  to  base  his  criticism  and  argument 


26 


upon  such  false  assumption  ?  The  Bishop  can  answer,  or,  if  he  declines, 
others  can  answer  these  questions  without  difficulty. 

The  Bishop  is  extremely  desirous  to  protect  the  negroes  against  the 
consequences  of  the  Declaration  of  Independence.  It  cannot  be  done, 
however.  The  Bishop’s  eloquent  and  pathetic  appeal  to  the  consistency 
of  the  slaveholding  authors  of  the  Declaration,  and  of  the  Constitution 
will  not  help  him  ;  and  the  argument  from  the  “  true  intent  ”  fights  on 
the  other  side.  It  is  demonstrable ,  from  contemporary  history,  that  those 
men  meant  exactly  what  they  said — when  they  said  “  all  men,”  they 
meant  all  men,  negroes  not  excepted.  It  is  certain  from  all  the  docu¬ 
ments  of  the  period,  that  they  considered  slavery  a  relic  of  barbarism 
which  public  opinion  and  their  legislation  would  speedily  exterminate. 
They  treated  it  precisely  as  St.  Paul  did — they  scotched  it,  and  left  it  to 
die. 

Neither  will  the  Bishop  ever  succeed  in  proving  that  the  Declara¬ 
tion  “  forms  no  part  of  our  present  system.”  Its  principles  are  the  cor¬ 
ner  stone  of  the  Constitution,  which  also  everywhere  handles  slavery  with 
hot  tongs,  ashamed  to  touch,  or  'even  to  name  it.  And  if  the  full  au¬ 
thority  of  the  Constitution  had  been  exercised,  slavery  could  never  have 
gone  beyond  the  “  Old  Thirteen.” 

The  Bishop  is  much  exercised  at  the  pestiferous  moral  influence  of 
the  Declaration  in  stimulating  men  to  better  their  condition — making 
them  discontented  with  their  lot,  &c., — the  homily  is  not  worth  criticis¬ 
ing.  The  Bishop’s  ideal  of  a  State  is  evidently  the  Institutes  of  Menu — 
the  priests  and  warriors  the  dominant  classes — all  else  slaves,  and  every 
man  restricted  hereditarily  forever  to  the  trade,  or  occupation  of  his 
father. 

The  Bishop  objects  strongly  to  the  objection  that  slavery  leads  to 
immorality.  So  then  some  five  hundred  thousand  brothels  established 
by  the  laws  of  the  Southern  States,  and  sanctioned  by  the  laws  of  the 
Southern  Church,  and  one-half  of  the  slaves  the  immediate  children  or 
inheriting  the  blood  of  their  masters,  is  not,  in  the  Bishop’s  opinion,  in¬ 
consistent  with  Christian  morality ! 

The  Bishop  dares  to  justify  the  sale  of  wives  (as  he  calls  them)  and 
children  by  the  analogy  of  the  temporary  separation  of  families  among 
freemen,  when  necessity  or  duty  requires  it.  I  shall  not,  on  this  point, 
trust  my  feelings  to  express  themselves  in  words. 

The  Bishop  puts  forth  his  best  efforts  to  get  rid  of  the  objection 
from  polygamy,  and  uses  his  accustomed  means — misstatement  of  facts, 


and  false  conclusions.  Christ  being  appealed  to  by  the  Jews  in  regard  to 
divorce,  informs  them  that  divorce  was  only  permitted  for  the  hardness  of 
their  hearts.  Hence  the  Bishop  infers  that  polygamy  was  permitted  for 
the  same  reason.  Very  good — but  why  may  not  another  man  infer  that 
slavery  also  (which  includes  both  divorce  and  polygamy,  so  far  as  it  per¬ 
mits  anything  like  marriage)  was  permitted  for  the  same  reason  ?  Be¬ 
cause,  says  the  Bishop,  in  regard  to  slavery,  there  is  “  an  authoritative 
decree  of  the  Almighty.”  “  In  regard  to  the  slavery  of  Ham’s  posterity, 
He  issues  His  commands  distinctly.”  Now  there  is  not  anywhere  in  the 
Bible  any  command  to  enslave  anybody.  Professor  Stuart,  one  of  the 
best  Hebrew  scholars  in  the  country,  in  a  pamphlet  strongly  apologetic  of 
slavery,  in  which  he  brings  every  thing  in  extenuation  of  it  that  he  could 
find,  (though  he  did  not  attempt  to  defend  it)  after  quoting  the  passage  in 
Leviticus  which  is  the  Bishop’s  great  authority,  says :  “  What  now  have 
we  here?  simply  and  plainly  an  unlimited  liberty  to  purchase  bondmen 
and  bondmaids.  But  when  Moses  says  ‘  ye  shall  buy  bondmen  and  bond¬ 
maids,’  he  is  not  to  be  understood  as  giving  command  but  permission. 
Our  translators  have  here  made  the  future  tense  imperative ,  and,  as  it 
were,  jussive  ;  but  every  one  acquainted  with  Hebrew,  knows  that  the 
future  tense  is  very  often  permissive ,  that  is,  it  is  used  as  a  subjunctive 
mode.”  Thus  it  appears  that  slavery  is  in  the  same  category  with  di¬ 
vorce  and  polygamy.  But  it  is  quite  consistent  with  pro-slavery  logic  and 
morality,  to  discard  two  of  the  trio,  and  approve  the  third,  though  a 
thousand  times  the  worst  of  the  three. 

The  Bishop  winds  up  his  defence  of  slavery  most  appropriately,  by 
endorsing  the  blasphemous  pretension  of  Southern  politicians,  that  slavery 
is  a  great  missionary  system — superior  a  thousand  fold,  says  the  Bishop, 
to  the  common  method  !  Let  us  do  evil  that  good  may  come  !  “  The 

sure  mercies  of  slavery  ”  and  the  whip  ! !  This  is  the  machinery  which  a 
Christian  Bishop  thinks  it  well  to  substitute  for  the  command  of  Christ 
and  the  practice  of  the  Apostles  ! 

The  Bishop  has  evidently  fallen  in  love  with  the  slaveholding  char¬ 
acter.  It  is,  certainly,  of  admirable  unity  and  consistency.  Such  as  it 
is  in  relation  to  its  slaves,  such  it  is  in  all  relations.  It  feels,  there, 
none  of  the  restraints  and  limitations  which  in  others,  control  equal  and 
just  relations.  It  has  no  bargains  to  make,  no  contracts  to  fulfill,  no 
debts  to  pay.  It  steals  what  labor  it  needs.  It  gives,  it  withholds,  it 
takes  away,  at  pleasure.  It*  will  is  law.  It  is  master.  It  dictates; 


\  i  n  w  j 

-H 

and  its  means  are  fear  and  force.  These  traits  and  methods  never  forsake 
it.  In  private  intercourse  with  equals,  it  still  domineers  with  bowie- 
knife  and  revolver.  As  legislator  it  repudiates  its  honest  debts.  It  steals 
by  law  fortresses,  arsenals,  mints,  and  whatever  else  it  has  power  to  seize 
upon.  As  a  treaty  making  power,  it  says':  “it  do:s  not  ‘  take  two  to  make 
a  bargain,’  or  to  break  it,  when  I  am  one  of  the  parties.”  In  argument 
the  conclusions  shall  be  such  as  its  interests  require,  not  such  as  the  prem¬ 
ises  demand.  In  religion  the  interpretations  of  the  Church  Universal  are 
rejected  with  the  characteristic  answer  :  “  I  am  the  Church.”  It  says  to 
the  Author  of  Christianity  :  your  command  to  go  into  all  the  world  and 
preach  the  gospel,  is  obsolete.  It  is  better,  more  profitable,  to  send  for 
the  heathen  and  make  them  work  out  their  salvation. 

Slavery,  so  lately  humble,  abject,  making  full  confession  of  felony,, 
asking  only  leave  to  repent  and  die,  suddenly  conceived  hope  of  reprieve, 
and  became  self-apologetic,  then  hope  of  pardon  and  became  self-justify¬ 
ing,  next  asserted  that  it  had  never  been  guilty,  and  by  the  most  auda¬ 
cious  and  impudent  sophistry,  thought  to  establish  its  innocence.  But  its 
strength  is  puny  in  logical  combats,  and  finding  itself  in  danger  of  shame¬ 
ful  defeat  by  this  method,  it  has  boldly,  in  desperation,  seized  the  weap¬ 
ons  natural  to  it,  “  steel  and  fire  ;  ”  and,  mad  with  judicial  blindness,  is 
rushing  at  now  aroused  Freedom.  So  let  it  perish. 


